About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations (March 2016 through June 2016) [i] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1192 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally D.Vt.Bkrtcy.Ct.2015. Cit. generally in sup. Chapter 13 debtor husband and wife brought an adversary proceeding against lender that refinanced a loan on debtors' homestead property, seeking a declaration that the mortgage was unenforceable because wife had not signed the mortgage or the underlying note. This court relied in part on the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in granting in part lender's summary-judgment motion requesting a secured claim on the property, noting that the Vermont Supreme Court had repeatedly adopted the position espoused by the Restatement Third where Vermont law was underdeveloped or vague. In re Jones, 534 B.R. 588, 596, 603, 605. PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment D.D.C.2015. Quot. in sup. In a Medicaid dispute, state agency sued federal agency and others, seeking to recover over $90 million in overpayments that plaintiff erroneously credited to defendants; while defendants did not dispute that the payments were erroneous, they argued that plaintiff's claims were filed outside the two-year limitations period. This court granted in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding that the balance of equities weighed in favor of plaintiff and that defendants were unjustly enriched by plaintiff s crediting of the funds to defendants. In making its decision, the court cited Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 in explaining that a person who was unjustly enriched at the expense of another was subject to liability in restitution. Georgia Department of Community Health v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 79 F.Supp.3d 269, 281. E.D.Mich.2015. Quot. in sup. Individuals who paid money to retailer of weight-loss products in order to enroll in a program that provided them with the opportunity to sell retailer's products filed a class action against retailer and several additional individuals and entities that received substantial payments from retailer, alleging that the program operated as a pyramid scheme and that the additional defendants were unjustly enriched by plaintiffs' participation in the program. This court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs' overly broad and vague allegations made it impossible to determine whether plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded an unjust-enrichment claim as to each additional defendant. The court cited Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 in noting that, in order to state an unjust-enrichment claim against the additional defendants, plaintiffs had to sufficiently allege a connection between each additional defendant's actions and enrichment on the one hand and plaintiffs' losses on the other hand. Kerrigan v. ViSalus, Inc., 112 F.Supp.3d 580, 616. __A l For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most